Karnataka High Court Asks Registrar To Verify Authenticity Of Aadhar Card Before Registering Agreements Of Sale, Other Documents

The Karnataka High Court has directed the Inspector General of Registration to verify the authenticity of the Aadhar card and identity of the person who produces it for registering any document and only thereafter proceed with the registration of a document.

A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj noted that in terms of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016, any service provider could register with UIDAI and obtain a sanction to verify the identity on the basis of OTP generated on the phone number of the holder of the Aadhar card.

Following which it directed “I am of the considered opinion that it would be required for the Inspector General of Registration to register itself under the UIDAI in terms of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016, and whenever an identification in the form of Aadhar card is furnished or produced before the registering authority, the said Registering Authority verify the authenticity of the Aadhar card and identity of the person and only thereafter proceed with the registration of a document.”

The court issued the direction while hearing a petition filed by Ramesh Timmanna Umarani, who had approached the court questioning the endorsement issued by the sub-registrar refusing to delete the entry in the encumbrance certificate made on his land, which was allegedly sold by an impersonator.

It was alleged that one Ramesh S/o.Sangappa Umarani, taking undue advantage of the similarity in his name and name of the petitioner, i.e Ramesh Timmanna Umarani, impersonated the petitioner and executed a registered agreement of sale dated 15.04.2021 in respect of the petitioner's land in favour of one Avinash S/o. Mallappa Anadanni. In pursuance of the said registered agreement of sale, necessary entries were also found in the encumbrance certificate.

The petitioner's right in the property being adversely affected, he had submitted a representation on 14.09.2023, calling upon the respondent to delete the entries in the encumbrance certificate, which came to be rejected vide endorsement dated 26.09.2023.

It was argued that petitioner not having executed any agreement of sale, someone else impersonated the petitioner and encumbrance has been created on the property of the petitioner, which could not have been so created and thus impinging on the right of the petitioner to exercise his ownership rights over his property.

Further, the agreement of sale is concerned, that is a matter between Avinash S/o. Mallappa Anadanni and Ramesh S/o.Sangappa Umarani, which is under investigation. However, the entries in the encumbrance certificate would be required to be deleted so as to enable the petitioner to exercise the ownership rights in his property.

The sub-registrar contended that after accepting the identity card produced, namely aadhar card, has accepted the identity of the person presenting the document and gone ahead with the registration. Moreover, until the registered agreement of sale continues to be on the books of the SubRegistrar, the question of deleting the entries in the encumbrance certificate, which has an automatic and consequential act post the registration of agreement of sale, cannot be made by the Sub-Registrar, since the SubRegistrar is functus officio post the registration of a document.

Firstly the bench noted that the Karnataka Registration Rules, 1965, details out the role and responsibilities of the Sub-Registrar, the manner of presentation of documents, manner of registration and actions taken post the said registration.

Then it said “In the present case, since in terms of the allegation made by Avinash S/o. Mallappa Anadanni in Crime No.68/2022, as also that made by the petitioner is that, one Ramesh S/o. Sangappa Umarani has impersonated the petitioner and signed as the petitioner, which would amount to forgery. However, at the time of registration, neither of the executants to the agreement, which was registered, took up the said contention requiring the Sub-Registrar to cause any enquiry or vain the officials and as such, registration was proceeded with.”

Noting that in the present case, the alleged executant Ramesh S/o. Sangappa Umarani is stated to have produced his Aadhar card to establish his identity and the Aadhar number is found mentioned in the registered document, the court said, “The Aadhar card having been produced, Aadhar number made available, the Registering Authority has accepted the same as proof of identity and gone ahead with the registration of the document, resulting in the present situation, where the petitioner claims that the Aadhar card itself was forged and someone else has impersonated the petitioner.”

Following which it held “The Registration Rules, more particularly the rules extracted hereinabove, there appears to be no requirement other than what is mentioned above for Registering Officer to ascertain the identity of a person or to check veracity of the Aadhar card which had been produced and so long as said Aadhar number has been reflected in the document registered, that would be sufficient compliance of verification of prima facie identity of the person.”

In regards to the deletion of entries in the encumbrance certificate the court said “Once a document fulfilling the requirement of Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, 1920 is registered, the entry of such registration would have to find place in the encumbrance certificate, which is more or less automatic or at least consequential to the act of registration of the document.”

Then it held, “Thus, cancellation of the entries in the encumbrance certificate is predicated by registration of a document and unless that document is set aside or cancelled, I am of the considered opinion that the entry in the encumbrance certificate cannot be cancelled or deleted. So long as the agreement of sale continues to be in the books of the Sub-Registrar corresponding entries would have to be reflected and included in the encumbrance certificate.”

In parting, the Court remarked that these kind of situations could well have been avoided if a suitable mechanism had been put in place to verify the authenticity of Aadhar card which had been produced.

Dismissing the petition the court granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional Court for cancellation of the agreement of sale.

Appearance: Advocates Girish A Yadawad, Divya J Deshpande, Rahul S Kuntoji for Petitioner.

AGA Praveen Uppar for Respondent.

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 31

Case Title: Ramesh Timmanna Umarani AND The Sub-Registrar

Case No: Writ Petition No 106890 OF 2023

Click Here To Read/Download Order